Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The politics of satire

SIMON HOUPT

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:52 AM EDT 15/07/08

Reaction swift and furious to New Yorker magazine cover depicting Barack Obama as turban-wearing flag burner ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. matt s from Canada writes: the problem with that cartoon is that it doesn't evoke a satirical thought when looked upon. my first impression when looking at it was derogatory. so it is derogatory and should be deemed as such.
  2. David Gibson from Canada writes: In bad taste, ignorant, arrogant, nasty, and begging to be misunderstood. The creeps at the New Yorker epitomize media arrogance.
  3. David Gibson from Canada writes: In bad taste, ignorant, arrogant, nasty, and begging to be misunderstood. The creeps at the New Yorker epitomize media arrogance.
  4. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: OMG. Obama has hit the heights of American society and is being spoofed by the liberal press. Obama wants to be crowned the black ruler of America but wants a free ride all the way to the white house. So much so that all the tender feelings would rather force a censorship on satirical cartoons. I guess he thinks he should get the same treatment as Islams Muhammad.
  5. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: If these grade 10 level of cartoons remained as the only obstacles for Obama, he has already won the race. The republicans must have run out of words. When you dislike a guy, associating him with Islamic terrorism somehow does not make you beat him automatically. And please do not tell me how complicated a criticism it was, I have my own eyes and can see what is there and will not purchase a New Yorker to know why it is there. So has Obama been lying throughout his life in order to convert the US to Islam? (Hey, change the S in Osama with B and you get Obama. See? I exposed him.) McCain needs more than such cartoons to avoid the upcoming defeat of all times and the last place for him to seek victory is New York.
    I guess New Yorker magazine has started to recruit high-school boys in order to combat rising costs and falling sales.
  6. matt e from Canada writes: I think the New Yorker can print what ever it likes. But, the cartoon in question reflects very badly on them and only serves to align them with such champions of impartial press as Fox news. How people such as Troubled Youth a couple posts above can still attempt to discredit the press as (gasp) 'liberal' is beyond me. It simply doesn't exist in the 'news for profit' mainstream American media.
  7. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: Sigh. One of the most intelligent and witty magazines in the English-speaking world publishes a satirical cover about the heir to the left-wing throne, by a brilliant artist - can you see how with just a few strokes that face is unmistakeably Obama's wife's? (I've always loved Blitt's work, since his RoB days, just as I love Anthony Jenkins's) - and suddenly the entire left-wing movement is aghast and angry, and the right-wing gleefully thinks it's hooked another one. GET A GRIP.

    Think: Darfur. Pollution. Extinction. Poverty. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. No matter how much our 'leaders' would like to distract us, with faux problems. Like funny cartoons.
  8. benjamin barr from Canada writes: people get real, it all in the game that is played. Has been done forever. Check your history.
  9. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: You can run a reprint of 'Meine Kampf' and can then say you did that to demonstrate how bad a person Adolf was. But you may not.
    As a person who learned English as a second language, I remember the difference between 'may' and 'can' as one of the first lessons. Some natives seem to have skipped the introduction.
    The best response from Obama team will be to ignore this and to say nothing at all. Lawsuits against artists may be one of the favourite methodologies of republicans but this just is not an issue for Obama even though this looks like a winnable lawsuit matter.
  10. Michael Powers from Canada writes: This cartoon was not printed by McCain and the Republicans but by the liberal press. These guys are Obama's friends.
    If he is having trouble with this, how is he going to handle the real down and dirty stuff thrown around during an American Election?
  11. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: 'The best response from Obama team will be to ignore this and to say nothing at all.' Too late. Obama team has declared it a terrible no-no, made it a big and offensive deal.

    The best response would've been to laugh. Maybe next time.
  12. Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: I compare that cover the covers of New Yorker magazines laying about the house and find nothing at all wrong with it. It is satire at its best.
    Obama the Muslim extremist! Just a few weeks ago it was Obama the Christian fundamentalist extremist! A few weeks before that the earth was flat!
    Love that cover!
  13. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: It seems that some of us have forgotten those 'other' cartoon depictions that inflamed passions as they scorched the environment and revealed how truly exclusive cultures are. Those cartoon nearly brought the world on the brink of.....
  14. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Depicting Obama is a flag burning terrorist, is an outrageous smear, depicting the Bush cabinet as blind to the rising flood waters is fair comment.THe New Yorker throughout its history , has been an excellent publication, but not without the occassional screw-up .The other US maganzines are mostly screw-ups.THe worste maganzines are the so called news magazines, Time, Newsweak (sic), and Canada's own useless Macleans .
  15. Brenton E. from Canada writes: there can be no nuance, no double meanings, no thought provoking statements because most people do not have the time or the inclination to bother. This election is not about domestic policy, foreign policy or the economy, this election is about whether or not America will elect a man who is not a wasp. That makes the cartoon at best bad judgment, at worse down right stupid. Some one needs to lose their job.
  16. Patrick Oland from Canada writes: Have we all been watching too much of the political roller derby of Fox/CNN/MSNBC that we can't laugh at a brilliant piece of political satire? The only people who should be offended are Obama's fear-mongering opponents. It's amazing how amidst the verbal diarrhea of the pundits and bloggers one picture says it all.
  17. Brenton E. from Canada writes: Patrick Oland from Canada writes: Have we all been watching too much of the political roller derby of Fox/CNN/MSNBC that we can't laugh at a brilliant piece of political satire? The only people who should be offended are Obama's fear-mongering opponents. It's amazing how amidst the verbal diarrhea of the pundits and bloggers one picture says it all. .......
    -----------------
    You'd be bang on if everyone who sees the cartoon takes the time to understand the message, most will not.
  18. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: Roop says - 'Those cartoon nearly brought the world on the brink of..... ' No, Roop. Muslim cartoons don't do that. Barry Blitt's cover doesn't do that. Humans do that.

    Cartoons are funny, remember? When you were a kid? Cartoons make humans laugh. Or not. Humans take the world to the brink, or not.
  19. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Robin Hannah: Glad SOMEBODY gets it!
  20. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes: I find nothing funny in that cartoon.

    It was meant to hurt not to amuse.

    Obama has done nothing to provoke this, nor has he said anything even remotely similar to what is being suggested.

    This was the stupidest form of journalism that can be displayed.

    If I had a subscription to this rag I would terminate it.
  21. Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, British Columbia, Canada writes:
    Much ado about nothing.

    It's a fricken' cartoon, folks. Get over it.
  22. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: Funny how the lefties think that their liberal mag's satirical portrayal of Obama is too nuanced and that 'most' wont grasp the humour. Judging by the comments here and elsewhere everyone but the lefties get the joke. The New Yorker certainly failed in reaching it's liberal market. Ol' G.W. has a whole cartoon series done on how the liberal media portrays him and narry a peep from the right.
  23. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Some may recall that many months ago the Westport Oracle stated this election campaign would eventually degenerate into a racial issue. Thundering criticism followed. Any questions now? Wait a while: You aint seen nothin yet.
  24. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Satire or black humour?

    Either way - some things are just NOT funny.
  25. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Robin Hannah from Canada writes: Roop says - 'Those cartoon nearly brought the world on the brink of..... ' No, Roop. Muslim cartoons don't do that. Barry Blitt's cover doesn't do that. Humans do that.

    'Cartoons are funny, remember? When you were a kid? Cartoons make humans laugh. Or not. Humans take the world to the brink, or not.'

    In a world where humans think alike (or choose to do so), then the true meanings of cartoons (and other forms of creative expression) can be truly appreciated. Sadly, in a normal population (like the human race), we have extremes, both ends of the curve, and everything else in between. Yes, all humans don't demonstrate similar powers of reason and perception...Is this a shortcoming? Or a reflection of our diversity?

    Incidentally, were Christians' passions inflamed following publications of the Danish cartoons, and naming (in Sudan) of a Teddy Bear after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?
  26. Colin Lee from Toronto, Canada writes: I suppose the first rule of entertainment is 'know your audience,' and evidently the New Yorker has failed miserably on that count.

    This cartoon is obviously one too many layers deep for the American voter, which is, in my opinion, a better indicator of the quality average American than the quality of the New Yorker.
  27. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: I don't see it as satirical. I see it as statement by the liberal media that they are now have some doubts about the wisdom of having chosen a candidate with a lot of questionable baggage that is not at all mitigated by poorly chosen comments by his wife, to say nothing about the guy he claims as being his 'former' pastor and mentor.

    The off the record comment by Jesse Jackson, just a couple of days earlier is one more indication that it is not and will not be a trip of smooth sailing to the presidency for Mr. Obama. And there is more to come. Count on it.
  28. Gerry Dunnhaupt from Toronto, Canada writes: It is interesting to note that Americans were more offended by the burning US flag than by the rest of the cartoon. If a satire on the cover is to be effective it must be self-explanatory, and not require an article INSIDE the magazine to explain its meaning.
  29. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: You would have to be a complete ejeet not to understand that this cover was meant as satire...

    However, apparently a lot of people don't understand that The Trailer Park Boys are satire too.
  30. The Archer from Canada writes: Here's a question....what demographic reads the 'New Yorker'? Do you think they understand satire....or are all Americans (and apparently Canadians) taking their cues of moral indignation from the View and questionable pundits looking for cheap journalistic points??! The purpose was to poke fun at those media outlets and talking heads on the right who have disparaged Obama...not to attack him himself. Where's this self-righteous outrage at those commentators?
  31. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Worth REPEATING:

    'Colin Lee from Toronto, Canada writes:

    'I suppose the first rule of entertainment is 'know your audience,' and evidently the New Yorker has failed miserably on that count.

    'This cartoon is obviously one too many layers deep for the American voter, which is, in my opinion, a better indicator of the quality average American than the quality of the New Yorker.'

    As the old saying goes:

    Where 'innocence' is bliss, it's folly to be wise!
  32. Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, British Columbia, Canada writes: By the way, I've added it to my collection of 'offencive' cartoons at TenderSensibilities.com
  33. grel grel from Toronto, Canada writes: Satire is, generally, 'tasteless and offensive' ... so much so, that it becomes .... satire! I think it's pretty funny.

    Some people are offended, however, which suggests that some people have a nagging fear/concern about Obama, which is sad. In which case, the cover has done its job in laying that bare.
  34. C J from Canada writes: The dumba**es in NY sure have too much $$$, not knowing how to spend it and screaming to be sued
  35. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Who are being depicted here?

    Obama, Osama or Umama?
  36. Liz B from Ottawa, Canada writes: Obviously, the New Yorker needed to dig up Norman Rockwell to really do justice to Obama, because Americans, even lefties, are just too thick-headed and thin-skinned to digest a subtle dig when they see one. The image on the New Yorker cover should only be offensive to the fools who try to sell this vision of the Obamas over the airwaves.

    The cover is typical of what the magazine does regularly. That this cover has caused controversy is just more evidence that political dialogue in the US is hopeless. 'You're either with us or agin' us' is no longer just the motto of the Bush administration, apparently.
  37. Chris Schultz from Ottawa, Canada writes: This is a classic cover from the New Yorker (a notoriously left-leaning magazine) that exposes the image the American RIGHT has of Obama. Did anybody see the exit poll footage of the Democrat primaries? The 'good ol' boys' and their wives talking about Obama's foreign origins and different religion?

    This is brilliant. Truly brilliant. I feel sorry for people who don't understand irony anymore, something I've discovered is an increasing problem in an overly sensitive world.
  38. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Gosh, it is a satire, actually well done.

    McCain should ask for equal time and exposure.

    How about one depicting him as

    - a brain washed POW a la Manchurian candidate
    - in wheelchair and a walking cane
    - A black daughter born out of wedlock (his Bangladesh adoption)
    - A finger on the button as missles rain down on Iranian mullahs
    - A poster stepford wife oozing with inherited money
  39. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: Look at all the BS posted by the politically correct crowd! No friggin' sense of humour! One quick look at the cartoon, and anyone with a half an ounce of common sense or more realizes exactly what it is...satire, a spoof of the US election. This was nothing....so get a GD life people!

    I do agree with Gerry Prakhhurst though...we ain't seen nothin' yet! This campaign will get down and dirty as a large chunk of the American population ( mainly in the south) just aren't ready for a black president (or female president, for that matter) 50 years from now, perhaps, but not yet. So, there's going to be one h3ll of a mud slinging campaign going on...both candidates will get caught up in the flow. When that happens, this one cartoon will seem like childs play!
  40. Andy Garrett from West Palm Beach, United States writes: With all the crying and moaning out of the Obama camp it clearly leads one to suspect they are in extreme denial
    about the subject matter. I find the cartoon quite funny. Look at some of the current cartoons of GWB and Steve; they don't
    complain or whine. If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the Oval Office or the PMO. I am quickly concluding
    Obama is a closet muslim and his wife a rabid Marxist.
  41. Bobbi Z from Halifax, Canada writes: I understood the message the minute I saw the cartoon - that, however, doesn't make it less offensive. I appreciate the New Yorker's brand of satire, and have for years, but this is beyond satirical and well into offensive.
  42. Crash Bear Heads from Canada writes: I find it amusing that the reaction to this cartoon is not dissimilar to the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons satirizing Islam -- except without the death threats, so far...
  43. Pearls before Swine from Canada writes: Brilliant cover! I laughed and laughed, first at the cover, then at the apoplectic reactions from the humour-challenged. But then I also rolled on the floor laughing at the substitute preacher at Obama's church who parodied Hillary: 'Oh lord, there's a black man, and he wants what's mine!' Given this election, the American 'electorate' and some of its bizarre beliefs about the candidates, and the dismal state of the media coverage which dutyfully gives every looney his fifteen minutes, I can only keep wishing for a lot more of the same.
  44. Tobin Manley from The Bronx, NYC, United States writes: Some of the above posters reveal themselves by extrapolating about 300 million humans by the reactions from a some interest groups and political partisans. Most Americans aren't losing much sleep over the cover, and the echo-chamber media is at a remove from reality.
    The raging blogosphere is not the 'typical American', and those above who blithely mention 'typical American' are flirting with bigotry, if not facile generalization. If I blathered on about 'typical Canadians' I would hoped to be called out for foolishness.
  45. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: When only the people that would like to see Obama lose find this funny you know it has not passed the satire ruling.
  46. Andy Garrett from West Palm Beach, United States writes: Tobin: actually you would be doing them a favour if 'typical Canadians' would ever engage in self reflection
    so they can correct their faults. Don Adams: you are a 'real' Canadian.
  47. deliciously uncanadian from Canada writes: Quick, call in the HRC commissars.

    What, the US doesn't have them you say?

    Pity...
  48. Robert Bott from Calgary, Canada writes: The satire would have worked (for me anyway) if the image had appeared in a 'thought balloon' of some stereotypical redneck or Elmer Fudd character.

    As others have pointed out, the object of derision -- the perpetrator of the abuse -- must appear for the satire to be effective.

    Even running the title, Politics of Fear, might have saved the day.

    But as it stands, the editor and publisher have a lot to answer for. They have sadly provided teeshirt art for America's yahoo underbelly.

     ...'they had not the least tincture of reason, any more than the YAHOOS in this country.'...
    -- Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels
  49. m rea from Canada writes: So let me get this straight. Bush can have cartoons making fun of him DAILY (some of them very ANTI-American) as the acting President and no one bats an eye, but as soon as Obama (who is NOT the President) gets an absurd cartoon drawn about him, everyone is in an uproar. Wow. we have a lot of sensitive people out there. Political figures are in the limelight so they get everything thrown at them, including absurd, ridiculous and nonsense cartoons drawn about them. Get over it. I laughed, cause I saw how stupid it was.
  50. john doe from toronto, Canada writes: Great cartoon, very clever.

    It's always strange when people can get furious over an ironic cartoon about idiotic fox-news rumours, but barely yawn at the original scurrilous 'news' reports.
  51. Another Opinion from Canada writes: Here's something to think about: The point of the cartoon was that the Republicans are attempting in their campaign materials to portray Obama as an ineffective opponent to terrorism. So, ultimately, this cartoon is supposed to be mocking the Republicans.

    For those of you who claimed it is 'only' satire, do you still think it's effective? How many people here recognized that the target of the satire was McCain?

    The cartoon was supposed to be the visual equivalent of 'Yeah, right! That'll be the day!' Unfortunately, nobody let the cartoon's subject in on the 'joke'. Sloppy and stupid.
  52. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For m rea: 'Bush can have cartoons making fun of him DAILY (some of them very ANTI-American) as the acting President and no one bats an eye, but as soon as Obama (who is NOT the President) gets an absurd cartoon drawn about him, everyone is in an uproar.'

    Ummm, actually that's the point. The cartoon isn't making fun of Obama. It's making fun of Republican claims that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer.

    Given that you don't get the point of the cartoon, can you see maybe why Obama might be upset about it? Half the population doesn't get it. It was a joke made out of context.
  53. Bruce Banner from Toronto, Canada writes: Troubled Youth from Everywhere - EXACTLY RIGHT SIR. Personally, the hypocrissy of the liberal left never ceases to amaze.

    Where are the cries of outrage over free speech like when Muslims in the West protested peacefully about the publishing of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed? How does this reaction compare to the left's traditional support of the subtle satire in such literary classics as Huck Finn?

    Presumably to assuage its bastion of moralistic, liberal supporters: 'After the outcry, the magazine also posted a gallery on its website of some of Blitt's previous work under the title 'The Politics of Satire,' which included a post-Hurricane Katrina illustration of the Bush cabinet blithely failing to recognize that the Oval Office is being swamped.'

    No think-right at work here huh? Reminds me of John Stewart's show where he has to tell 5 jokes about Bush before he can tell one joke (uncomfortably) about the Dems and their sacred cow Obama.
  54. John Doucette from manotick, Canada writes: H--L, most north Americans can't even spell satire!
  55. S Boatright from Canada writes: Interesting reaction by the American media and the Obama camp. As one poster said, not unlike the reaction of some of the Muslim community when the Danish cartoons came out. And, as some have pointed out - there are countless satirical cartoons of Bush out there. Yet not an indignant peep from a single soul. Why is that? Is this what freedom of speech is about? It's great - as long as you are expressing what I agree with? Isn't that what we denounce in countries like China? Freedom of speech should not have a double standard. The rules need to apply across the board - and the treatment of an individual should not be different because of how popular they are. If it's ok to publish satirical cartoons about Bush - then it should also be ok to publish satirical cartoons about Obama. In the end I think that if Obama makes a big deal out of this - it will backfire. You can't police the voting booth (except in places like Zimbabwe, and we're not quite there in North America, although we're on the same path). People do not care one wit about political correctness when they place their X. And if you push too hard to try and force people to THINK the way you want them to think - they will resist. Because they can.
  56. Mike G from Toronto, Canada writes: Ah, the American left. You're allowed to make fun of people, just as long as it's not one of their own, or all of the sudden you're over than PC line. Funny enough that this should appear in a bastion of the American left. You'd think the New Yorker would know that, having done the same thing before.

    Satire, to some degree or another, is going to be offensive. It's simply a matter of pushing the envelope, and how far someone's willing to go to be satirical. This is simply an attempt of the left to lampoon the right for trying (and failing) to vilify a member of the left. Big deal.

    I say sit back and enjoy it.
  57. m rea from Canada writes: For Another Opinion from Canada: Ummm....I don't think you get it. If the cartoon was made to make fun of republican claims, why is Obama upset? Shouldn't the Republicans be the ones embarrassed at how absurd their accusations have been? Why is Obama, the young, immature politician so offended? I think you might unknowingly be the half of the population that doesn't get it.
  58. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: I think the New Yorker overestimated its readership. Most Americans wouldn't appreciate the very subtle satire presented in the cartoon. A senior editor should have suggested that though it is a brillant depiction of sublime satire, it won't have that effect among the general public and obviously that has proven to be true. Someone at the New Yorker will be made to fall on the grenade over this.
  59. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For m rea: 'If the cartoon was made to make fun of republican claims, why is Obama upset?'

    Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they portrayed his wife as a gun-toting murderer? Besides, look at the posts above you.

    They ALL think the satire is mocking Obama. More than 2/3 of posters have no clue what the image is about. Clearly, the point of the cartoon missed its mark. Incidentally, to clarify, the New Yorker released this description:

    'artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.'

    Clearly, from their perspective, the satire does NOT attack Obama... but most people here think it does. Also, both Obama AND McCain have criticized the image as in poor taste.

    Like I said, it's a poor attempt at a joke that hit the wrong target. If you need more proof, spend some time reading how many posters above think the cartoon is a satire on Obama. These people have no clue. Can you blame Obama for being upset about it?
  60. bob london from Canada writes: Although the joke makes sense to people who enjoy politics and understand his viewpoints it is an inappropriate front cover. How often do Cdn's go to the southern states and ask if you have snow all year round. Not all the readers are bright enough on either side of the isle.
  61. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For Mike G: 'Ah, the American left. You're allowed to make fun of people, just as long as it's not one of their own, or all of the sudden you're over than PC line.'

    Man, I'm getting tired of explaining this to people. The cartoon is NOT MOCKING OBAMA! Read the New Yorker's description of it. They're supposed to be mocking the misinformation coming from Obama's opponents.

    You wonder why Obama's mad about it? It's because there are millions of people like you who don't freakin' GET IT!
  62. c rob from Canada writes: The New Yorker seriously overestimated the ability of not only its readership, but the population at large to get the satire. For a society that gets its knowledge from censored news and reality shows, they dropped the ball unfortunately. Now every right wing nutcase, and there appears to be plenty of those, will run with it. Did the New Yorker honestly think that people would read the story and get it? People don't read. They react. Welcome to the new, semi-literate world. Sad.
  63. m rea from Canada writes: For Another Opinion from Canada: AGAIN....Why is Obama so upset if the cartoon is not Mocking Obama?

    'Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they portrayed his wife as a gun-toting murderer? '

    You know, when politicians enter the ring, they bring their families with them, unfortunately. But they agree to that, so I say, get over it. Stop being so sensitive. If you read your posts they contradict themselves. Stop being educated by the New York Times and think for yourself.
  64. S Boatright from Canada writes: c rob from Canada writes: 'Did the New Yorker honestly think that people would read the story and get it? People don't read. They react. Welcome to the new, semi-literate world. Sad. '

    And therein lies the great tragedy behind the decline of the western civilization. We could have stopped it, but we're so self-involved we can't even see it. Not unlike the decline of the Great Roman Empire.

    We are about to witness a natural cleansing in North America - I like to call it societal implosion. At least its environmentally friendly - chemical and solvent free. ;)
  65. Jeri B from Toronto, Canada writes: Sadly there are many who will look at this and take it literally, without realizing the message behind it. I'm particularly thinking of the far Right, the same people who claim they will put this image on a Tshirt.
    However, to even the playing field, maybe they should have used two covers, the other with McCain dressed as Hitler, or someone equally horrific.
  66. S Boatright from Canada writes: Jeri B from Toronto, Canada writes: 'However, to even the playing field, maybe they should have used two covers, the other with McCain dressed as Hitler, or someone equally horrific. '

    It happens all the time Jeri - not with McCain, but with Bush. The difference appears to be that Bush has a thicker skin than Obama. Must be one of the perks of being Commander in Chief.

    Obama will need to grow a thicker skin, if he wants the job.
  67. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For m rea: 'If you read your posts they contradict themselves.'

    Really? Do tell.

    'Stop being educated by the New York Times and think for yourself.'

    Having never read the Times, what specifically does that publication have to do with my point?

    Incidentally, kudos to you for COMPLETELY ignoring what I'm saying and flying off on some peculiar tangent. The fact is most people seem to have misinterpreted the subject matter of the cartoon. The joke, quite simply, missed its mark. I'm sorry you appear to be unable to respond to that point.
  68. Richard E. Gower from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Begging to be misunderstood' is probably a kind way of phrasing it, but I am in full agreement with David Gibson. It is the product of the insular arrogance that is typical of much of media.
  69. m rea from Canada writes: For Another Opinion from Canada: Thank you so much for being one of the FEW that actually got this cartoon. Wow, how foolish more than 2/3 of us posters have been to totally miss the mark.

    'You wonder why Obama's mad about it? It's because there are millions of people like you who don't freakin' GET IT! '

    Shame on us (over 2/3 of us posters) for making Obama mad!! Here I thought that he was mad about the cartoon. As it turns out its us 'freakin' people who just don't 'get it'. (said in sarcastic tone)

    My fault for entertaining your blabbing for far too long.
  70. Sue City from Canada writes: Mr. Blitt says, 'It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.'

    It seems to me that depicting this concept is pandering to the lowest common denominator and supporting its views. It's the equivalent of potty humour in my books, not satirical wit. It's best to rise above ignorant opinions, not highlight them.
  71. Jeri B from Toronto, Canada writes: S Boatright from Canada writes: 'It happens all the time Jeri - not with McCain, but with Bush. The difference appears to be that Bush has a thicker skin than Obama. Must be one of the perks of being Commander in Chief.

    Obama will need to grow a thicker skin, if he wants the job.'

    Very true indeed. I was thinking more for the millions who will see the cover, and the many stories in the news about the cover, and take it at face value. It's for these people that I believe there should have been two covers. If they see McCain also depicted as a controvertial figure, they would be more likely to realise the satire behind the whole story. BUT I also get that the reason it's solely targeted at Obama is because of the ridiculous notion that he is not patriotic, a notion not uttered about McCain.
  72. Paul C from Canada writes: wow... people are dumber than I thought. Its satire.
  73. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For m rea: 'Wow, how foolish more than 2/3 of us posters have been to totally miss the mark.'

    I appreciate your humility, but my point was that the cartoon is misleading. I'm not upset that you don't get it. I'm upset that you (and others) didn't make an effort to understand the issue before posting.

    I don't blame you for not getting the joke. I didn't get it either. That's why, upon seeing the cartoon, I decided to do a little research into the rationale behind it.

    You, on the other hand, have elected to attack Obama for being upset and attack ME for trying to explain WHY Obama is upset. Look, if you don't CARE what the facts are, that's your business. But why comment on the news if you're not interested in reading it?
  74. F Johnson from Canada writes: The irony here is that The New Yorker is a pretty left-wing publication so imagine what the right-wing nut bars will do to this guy.
  75. none of your business from leningrad, Russian Federation writes: New Yorker's best satire against itself, indeed, the entire satire community nowadays.
  76. Paul H from Canada writes: Wah...Wah...Wah...

    If it was Steven Harper or George Bush all the whiners on here would think it was the most humourous cartoon ever.
  77. c rob from Canada writes: Mary Smith from United States

    I do not share your sentiments about 'stupid Canadians', but I would suggest that what we are experiencing is the 'dumbing down' of North America in general. Habeus corpus gets suspended and the words 'national security' are invoked on both sides of the border at the drop of a hat as justiifcations for an erosion of rights and/or civil liberties. That happens because somewhere along the line someone stopped educating those that come after us and pushed the play button on a movie instead to show them the 'truth' of their 'history'. Ignorance lies on both sides of the border and across continents. One difference however, may be the manner by which that ignorance is used to condemn others. Just some thoughts.
  78. m rea from Canada writes: For Another Opinion from Canada: seriously....No one is 'attacking' anyone. We're commenting. So stop thinking that I am personally attacking you (and Obama). So we don't agree, who cares? WOW!
  79. Red-necked and loving it from Canada writes: One man's satire is another man's inane drivel which is what this is.
  80. Mike G from Toronto, Canada writes: Another Opinion from Canada writes: For Mike G: 'Ah, the American left. You're allowed to make fun of people, just as long as it's not one of their own, or all of the sudden you're over than PC line.' Man, I'm getting tired of explaining this to people. The cartoon is NOT MOCKING OBAMA! Read the New Yorker's description of it. They're supposed to be mocking the misinformation coming from Obama's opponents. You wonder why Obama's mad about it? It's because there are millions of people like you who don't freakin' GET IT! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you read my entire comment? Sounds like someone's getting their knickers in a not without reading the entire thing. Here's the rest just for you: 'Satire, to some degree or another, is going to be offensive. It's simply a matter of pushing the envelope, and how far someone's willing to go to be satirical. This is simply an attempt of the left to lampoon the right for trying (and failing) to vilify a member of the left. Big deal. I say sit back and enjoy it.' The reason I find it funny is the left is up in arms over something that IS NOT mocking him in the first place. It's mocking the people who attempted to villify Obama. I see my four year Political Science degree hasn't completely gone to waste.
  81. Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: What should woryy every thinking American (liberals get a pass on this) is that the Obama campaign itself doesn't fiind the image rediculous.

    Take 'shorty' for example. If you call a person tall in stature that everyone laughs. The lower someone's height the more hurtful it becomes.

    The truth hurts.
  82. CC Rider from Toronto, Canada, Canada writes: FINALLY!!!!! Someone got it RIGHT! Congratulations Barry Blitt.....It's about time everyone saw B.O. and his wife for what they really are. You watch..... someone is going to scream racism ...........You all better race out to get your copy because it will be a collector's item.......
  83. Stephen Harrington from Toronto, Canada writes: Apparently the New Yorker fails to understand satire. Satire must understand the general public opinion. Sadly there are Americans that do look at Obama in the same light as depicted by the cartoon, therefore they are the ones that should have been satirized, not the Obama's, or the concept of the terrorist fist bump.
  84. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Ahhh...

    Diddums the New Messiah get poked fun at?

    Poor wittle Obama, here now, stop crying.
  85. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: For those who refer to the 'typical American' or, better yet, the 'quality of the average American,' come on now, why is stereotyping and generalization about Americans continually so accepted here? Can you imagine people talking about the 'quality of the average Korean'? This is not a breed of algae we're talking about, this is a huge, extremely diverse (much more so than Canada) nation of 300 people! Stop being so ridiculously prejudiced and letting anecdotes and stereotypes do the thinking for you.

    Besides, given the nature of the comments here who apparently fail to miss a very obvious joke, I'd say the 'quality' of the 'average Canadian' is exactly the same.

    Crash Bear Heads from Canada writes: I find it amusing that the reaction to this cartoon is not dissimilar to the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons satirizing Islam -- except without the death threats, so far...

    Or the embassy bombings or the fires or the riots or the boycotts or the threats to citizens who happen to share a nationality with a newspaper, or the dragging it out for 3 years after discovering it a year after the fact, or...
  86. Kevin Carriere from Edmonton, Canada writes: Satire:

    SCTV, or Saturday Night Live?

    You make the call.
  87. Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: Mary Smith from United States writes:

    I love it. The usual dim-witted Canadians and their 'America isn't ready for a Black President'. Where's Canada's Black PM? What country has a lower White population?

    Stupid, stupid Canadians.

    ***

    What is your point? Or are you trying to make one?

    What country has a lower white population? I don't know, what country has a lower white population? Nigeria? India? Canada? the US? What does that even mean?
  88. S M from Canada writes: The question isn't just whether it was tasteless, but whether it was counterproductive to the intent of the article. That they publishers weren't able to anticipate that it would be counterproductive, suggests startling naivete (perhaps, borne of self absorption). What they mean may be important to them, but the message that others receive is what matters in the real world. I would have hoped that journalists, of all people, would be particularly attuned to that reality.
  89. James M from Canada writes: You know what's wrong with the cartoon? The American public is too dumb for satire.
  90. LJ Brody from Canada writes: Now lets see one with McCain dressed up as a Jew.
  91. Rollo T. from Belgium writes: CC Rider from Toronto, Canada, Canada writes:...........You all better race out to get your copy because it will be a collector's item.......
    ---------------------------------

    Just so. The New Yorker magazine is a business, and nothing sells like controversary.
  92. S M from Canada writes: CC Rider from Toronto, Canada, Canada writes: 'FINALLY!!!!! Someone got it RIGHT! Congratulations Barry Blitt.....It's about time everyone saw B.O. and his wife for what they really are. You watch..... someone is going to scream racism ...........You all better race out to get your copy because it will be a collector's item....... '

    ======================================================
    And, you would never play the race card, right CC?

    In any case, you appear to have completely missed the point of Mr. Blitt's illustration, which was to ridicule the people who are making the outlandish claims that Obama and his wife are as depicted in the cartoon. Your reaction (a complete misinterpretation of the intent of the cartoon) is sadly predictable and, therefore, a perfect demonstration of why the New Yorker ought to have been smart enough not to have published it, as was.
  93. Jeri B from Toronto, Canada writes: 'LJ Brody from Canada writes: Now lets see one with McCain dressed up as a Jew.'

    OR better yet, a homosexual. See how well THAT plays with the American Right-wingers!
  94. Chris H from To, Canada writes: Personally, I get the joke. Too bad so few others seem to. What is tasteless and derogatory is that a faction of the political right and their aligned media resorted to such a cheap tactic as to spread such ridiculous innuendo in the first place. The cover, to me, merely points out in an extremely exagerrated sense how ridiculous the notion was in the first place.

    Obama comes across to me as a very educated clever man. Surely he gets the joke.
  95. The Work Farce from Canada writes: Clever and cute but not funny. The medium is the message. For sophisticated readers of New Yorker, this cartoon is preaching to the converted, but for the millions of mindless yahoos trolling the magazine racks of North America, this cartoon confirms their worst prejudices while sensationalizing their worst mindless fears.
  96. S M from Canada writes: Mary Smith from United States writes: 'I love it. The usual dim-witted Canadians and their 'America isn't ready for a Black President'. Where's Canada's Black PM? What country has a lower White population? Stupid, stupid Canadians.'

    =====================================================
    Mary, I happen to be equally dismayed by the tendency of SOME Canadians to attempt to use every piece of news as an opportunity to demonstrate Canadian superiority. The ones who think that everything is better in the US are equally annoying, because both are uttlerly simplistic and wrong. This tendency to take things out of context, then distort them further also makes them look incredibly insecure and does not reflect well on the country the purport to love (Canada). However, if I were to assume that you are representative of all Americans (I don't), I might have to conclude that the negative characterizations are accurate. In other words, if you don't want Canadians to make stupid generalizations about the US, perhaps you should consider returning the favour. Making points that are relevant and clear might help, as well.
  97. CC Rider from Toronto, Canada, Canada writes: S M from Canada........oooooooooh, I got it right.....and if you think this political race is not all about race...think again....and the only card(s) I play is FISH.......go grab your copy...mine is already on reserve.......
  98. days ofcoleco from Canada writes: And next month's issue of the New Yorker will be renamed 'The Hymietowner'.
    Ha ha ha .... satire kills me.
  99. Kevin Wells from United States writes:
    James M from Canada writes: 'You know what's wrong with the
    cartoon? The American public is too dumb for satire. '

    Yea, the world knows we have no sophisticated comedy in the US. Only Canada can produce brilliant comics like Howie Mandel, Jim Carrey, Dave Foley, and the absolutely brilliant Mike Myers as the 'Love Guru' and 'Austin Powers'.

    I cannot get enough of these guys.